Credit

[+hueyflyer & copilot]

Does a Waymarking find count toward geocaching finds?

[+cache_test_dummies]

Does a Waymarking find count toward geocaching finds?

No, it does not.

[+Team Panda]

Thanks for the Markwell, CTD.

 

Can somebody explain to me (or markwell me again) exactly why TPTB are going to such pains to separate Geocaching from Waymarking? I really don't understand it at all and it seems counter to the purpose of "growing" the sport/game of Geocaching.

 

I'm sure that many who live in large metro areas think Geocaching is quite large enough. Some of you can gather in a thousand caches without traveling more than 20 miles away from the house. Out here in the sticks though, pickin's are pretty slim and growing the sport/game is a pretty big goal for cache hungry geocachers like me.

 

So when I see all this about how Waymarking is going to be connected to Geocaching in only the most remote sort of way, I begin to think I should forget about the whole Waymarking thing and concentrate on the Geocaching. After all, I'm a Geocacher, not a Waymarker. If Waymarking is a part of Geocaching, fine, I'm all over it and I'll enjoy the added facet of the sport/game I enjoy so much.

 

I was never that thrilled by either Locationless or Virtual caches but they were part of Geocaching and so I played them as they presented themselves. They were part of the game, even if they weren't my favorite part.

 

But if Waymarking is going to be an almost completely separate entity that will not advance the sport/game of Geocaching, then I have to choose whether I'm going to have to decide whether to devote my energies to Geocaching or Waymarking and since Waymarking is really nothing more than a collection of Locationless and Virtual caches, Waymarking will fall a very distant second.

 

So please, somebody explain to me why there's so much effort being made to ensure a division between the two? I don't understand the reasoning behind it at all, it seems completely counter intuitive to me. What am I missing?

 

Yes, I know this is long winded, I know I'm asking for a lot of explanation, but I ask because like everyone else here, I care a great deal about the future and welfare of Geocaching.

 

Thanks

[+IV_Warrior]

The part you're missing is many felt virts/locationless weren't really geocaching. TPTB apparantly agree with this sentiment, and that's why the two are being seperated. Geocaching is apparantly going to focus on "go here, find the container" and Waymarking will focus on the 'non-container' stuff.

[+Team Panda]

No, I understand perfectly what Waymarking IS.

 

I just don't understand why it must be so completely differentiated from Geocaching.

 

It seems to me that TPTB's current approach is making Geocaching "less" than it was.

 

As I said in my earlier post, there aren't a lot of caches in my area and due to the advent of Waymarking, there are suddenly quite a few LESS!

 

WMs won't show up on GC maps.

WMs won't show up on our GC Stats pages.

WMs won't show up on our GC PQs.

 

Etc...

 

Yeah, I can go over to Waymarking and do all of those things there if I want to but whats the advantage in doubling the "workload" to get the same thing we used to get all in one shot at GC?

 

The way its being done, it just seems that TPTB are increasing the unrewarding techinical (computer and GPS programming) effort required without increasing the rewarding (Look at these pics of the cool p[laces we found this weekend!) payoff.

 

Look, I know I get a little long winded at times and I apologize for that, its a bypoduct of an 85wpm typing speed.

 

The short form of the above post is...

 

How is the removal and isolation of previously available caching options and the reduction of future options, going to encourage the further growth of Geocaching?

 

 

PS

I want to make it clear I am NOT against Waymarking. Waymarking has some very attractive aspects. I'm just a little dismayed and confused by the concerted effort to forcefully separate it from the realm of Geocaching.

[+cache_test_dummies]

How is the removal and isolation of previously available caching options and the reduction of future options, going to encourage the further growth of Geocaching?

I doubt that encouraging the growth of geocaching was the reason for the decision to separate the 'container and log' places from the 'coordinate only' places into two different web sites.

 

Groundspeak has made a decision to follow a model which treats the two types of coordinate-based activities as different, no doubt driven by a number of technical, logical, and business/economic reasons.

 

I just can't understand some people seem to think this decision represents a threat to geocaching, or that anything is taken away in the process. Geocaching and Waymarking are two different activities which are likely to be pursued by different audiences (with some overlap). There's nothing wrong with this model that I can see.

 

As I said in my earlier post, there aren't a lot of caches in my area and due to the advent of Waymarking, there are suddenly quite a few LESS!

How did the advent of Waymarking cause a decline in the number of caches in your area? At this point, the only thing we know for sure is that locationless caches will be archived, and that new virtuals (at some point) will no longer be listed on GC.com. How does this translate into 'quite a few LESS' caches in your area?

 

Sorry, but this type of "Waymarking is hurting Geocaching!" argument doesn't sit well with me. There were known problems which arose from the existence of virtuals and locationless listings on GC.com, and Groundspeak came up with a solution which was not only elegant, but also represents a potential path to a much larger audience. It's as simple as that. I have not yet heard what I consider to be a reasonable argument for how these two activities compete with each other.

 

Yeah, I can go over to Waymarking and do all of those things there if I want to but whats the advantage in doubling the "workload" to get the same thing we used to get all in one shot at GC?

Fast forward a year. I've got PQs running on Waymarking.com and Geocaching.com, so my mailbox is receiving GPX files which I upload into my PDA and GPSr. Off I go to look for Geocaches and Waymarks in the area I plan on visiting today. No double workload, just plenty of things to look for - well categorized for my personal convenience!

 

WMs won't show up on GC maps.

Why should they? They are Waymarks, not Geocaches. As long as they all show up in my GPSr, I can find them. I'll bet we can eventually view them all together in Google Earth, too.

 

WMs won't show up on our GC Stats pages.

I believe that the decision as to whether or not the GC.com stats and WM.com stats will eventually be displayed on the same page is still open to discussion.

 

edit: spelling

Edited October 29, 2005 by cache_test_dummies

[+NomadVW]

<snip>

 

Fast forward a year. I've got PQs running on Waymarking.com and Geocaching.com, so my mailbox is receiving GPX files which I upload into my PDA and GPSr.

<snip>

 

WMs won't show up on GC maps.

Why should they? They are Waymarks, not Geocaches. As long as they all show up in my GPSr, I can find them. I'll bet we can eventually view them all together in Google Earth, too.

First, man - you had me excited. I read that too quick and thought we already had PQs for WMs and just didn't see it. A flurry of movements around WM.com, but still disappointed.

 

Second, can we stop assuming that Google Earth is the fix to all the inadequacies of the GC.com mapping? Until Google Earth is high resolution imagery world wide, your excitement about having it able to be integrated with GC.com or WM.com is simply misguided. It's great when you're in the states and in the city and you can tell that the cache is on the corner of X Street and Y Street on the south side. For some of us, it just tells us that the cache is in the middle of the big green glob of mountain side 20 km away.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Second, can we stop assuming that Google Earth is the fix to all the inadequacies of the GC.com mapping?

Um, this is not at all what I said.

 

But I hope you feel better now that you've had a chance to vent.

[+Team Panda]

God I despise Internet forums.

 

But I hope you feel better now that you've had a chance to vent.

 

It really doesn't matter what kind of person one is, being snide always makes one sound like a snot nosed brat direly in need of a spanking.

 

I just can't understand some people...

 

I will admit to being rather non-plussed that merely asking questions and expressing concerns relegates me to the status of "some people."

 

As an aside, have you considered the possibility that your admitted lack of understanding really disqualifies you from answering the questions at hand?

 

No, I suppose not.

 

Ah well, neither here nor there.

 

I'll make one attempt to put this simply so that all can understand my obviously very obscure points.

 

GC used to have Virtual Caches and Locationless Caches.

 

GC does not have Virtual Caches and Locationless Caches any more.

 

If there are 10 caches in a given area and three of them are Virtuals and 1 of them is a Locationless, how many caches are left in that given area?

 

Answer: 6

 

6 is less than 10.

 

Therefore, if we take the Virtual Caches and Locationless Caches away from Geocaching.com, then Geocaching.com logically has LESS caches than it had before we took them away.

 

I hope you will understand at least that much of my post now. If you are still "at loose ends" concerning the rest, I'm sorry but I don't have any more time to devote to explaining it to you. If you don't understand, just tell yourself I'm just "some people" and not worth listening to. Forget all about it, you won't miss a thing and life will go on apace.

 

Moving on...

 

For what its worth, I had somebody log "finds" on several of the Waymarks I created last weekend and from the entries they made and looking at their profile, which shows them as not having found a cache since June of 04, and having all but one of the seven caches they've placed archived, I don't believe the "Finder" was anywhere within 500 miles of the waymarks she "found" today.

 

Hardly what I would call a satisfying cach...er, "MARKING" experience.

 

For that matter, I really can't throw any stones. I have to admit I've been tempted to go log a "Find" on every single McWaymark on the list as I feel you can honestly say that once you've eaten at one McDonald's, you've eaten at all of them.

 

The only thing that stopped me was having too much self-respect to ever actually log having found a McDonalds.

 

Now at this point, I'm sure there are plenty of you who are saying "Well if you don't like Waymarking, then don't do it and shut up about it!"

 

Don't worry, this is my last post on the subject and probably my last post on the forums for quite some time to come. As I said above, I really detest Internet Forums anyway. They tend to bring out the worst in otherwise nice people.

 

But you see, I still have a "stake" in all of this even if I never visit the Waymark site again.

 

Why?

 

Because I'm a Geocacher and there are things being TAKEN AWAY from Geocaching.

 

Weekend before last, I traveled about 300 miles to take pictures and get coords for two Virtual caches I've been wanting to do for a very long time. They're both in a fair sized city within a couple of miles of the Interstate and amazingly, there isn't a single cache of any sort within 20 miles of the whole city! It's truly a "dead spot" that I wanted to try to add a little life to.

 

I can't put a traditional or even a micro cache there because I can't afford to drive that far on a regular basis to maintain the thing.

 

But there are these two REALLY beautiful places with very cool historical significance that would have made truly GREAT virtuals.

 

Sadly, even if I wanted to post them as Waymarks, (which I don't!) NEITHER of them fit any of the current catagories.

 

So, the whole trip was a waste of gas, a waste of time, and the area will remain barren of caches for the forseeable future.

 

But HEY!

 

Look at all Geocaching is GAINING from all these new developments.

 

Like, uhm...

 

Uh...

 

dadgum, nobody ever DID tell me what we were gaining from all this.

 

Maybe that's because they can't.

[+chstress53]

Team Panda

I can see from your stats that you have 6 virtuals and no locationless, in over a year of caching. So i do not see how this changes things for you. You said "GC used to have Virtual Caches and Locationless Caches." GC does not have Virtual Caches and Locationless Caches any more." NOT TRUE!!! There are currently still virtuals to be found as well as locationless. It is true Locationless,have not been able to be created in well over a year or two, but virtuals have been created within the past year even some this summer. Locationless are currently the only ones being moved by their creators to Waymarking. But the majority are being left to log in on gc.com until the New Year. The creators have placed notes on the locationless page. You post does not make sense, that there are less to find in your area; especially since locaionless may not be in your area as they are "Locationless" [/b]No caches have been taken away! [/b]

Yes, Waymarks and geocaching are separate entities. Virtuals and Locationless do not have log books yet geocaches do.

 

You also do not necessarily need to visit a waymark to create one; only when you log that waymark as a find this depends on the catagory manager. If you created a waymark and someone who logged a find on it then you as owner of the responsibility to find out why and possibly delete the find, if the answer is not satisfactory to you as owner of a waymark.

One last question

You said "God I despise Internet forums." Why did you post then?

Edited October 31, 2005 by chstress53

[+NomadVW]

Second, can we stop assuming that Google Earth is the fix to all the inadequacies of the GC.com mapping?

 

Um, this is not at all what I said.

 

But I hope you feel better now that you've had a chance to vent.

This was a vent, and not aimed at anyone in particular. It's tiring to hear of "fantastic" new features for geocaching/Waymarking at the drop of every hat that pertain to Google Earth. But what gets me more riled up is when people say "It's okay that we don't have that feature on GC/WM - because we can always just use Google Earth."

 

Yes, this is a vent. It's a rant, a toddler throwing his mouse at his computer screen.

 

I've updated my signature to reflect as such.

 

VW